Re: Less con-Troll bitch Trash?
- From: "Cheeky ***" <InvalidEmail@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:04:41 -0400
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:443bc78de26ef0e179e885a1a676991b@xxxxxxxxxxxx
saavik wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
any disagreement with yourLOL! 'Scatological references'???
pathological control issues
exceeds your tolerance level
and so you must resort
to childish taunts and
scatological references
..ah well
saavik wrote:
Poor widdle twoll. Hasn't been getting enough attention lately.
{:>P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*raspberries*
Margo
Nomen Nescio wrote:
<the same old boring, unimaginative bullsh*t>
You really shouldn't use such big words Ed unless you know what they
mean... otherwise you end up looking stoooopid. <E.G.>
once again
in your haste to post
another childish flame
you inadvertently demonstrate
your own ignorance
One would have thought if it really did bother you so much you would have
avoided it entirely.
IGNORENCE PERHAPS?
Looks more like a case of stupidity though...
Consider the source......
CB
.
- References:
- Re: Less con-Troll bitch Trash?
- From: Nomen Nescio
- Re: Less con-Troll bitch Trash?
- Prev by Date: Re: Less con-Troll bitch Trash?
- Next by Date: Re: Less con-Troll bitch Trash?
- Previous by thread: Re: Less con-Troll bitch Trash?
- Next by thread: Re: Less con-Troll bitch Trash?
- Index(es):